First person RLs

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

I picked up a copy of Eye of the Beholder for the Gameboy Advance the
other day (yes, it is a terrible game, but it was cheap, and I needed
something to kill time at work). Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.

To the best of my knowledge, no such RL has been made yet. Which is
truly a shame, since the randomness of RLs would really enhance the
exploration element, and really help to get you into the game.

The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it would
be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of the tunnels,
corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on the surfaces, and
take snapshots from the right angles, to come up with all of the basic
background graphics. Creatures would be a little harder to come by, but
it shouldn't be too hard to find decent sprites to use.

A few problems that spring to mind, is that ranged weapons, spells, and
effects become meaningless, since you can only really interact with the
space in front of you. One solution, is to take an Eye of the Beholder
approach, and switch to a different view for combat. Alternatively, if
you put a stronger emphasis on exploration and discovery, the flaws in
the combat won't be too bad.

Any thoughts?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:25:38 -0500, Timothy Pruett wrote:

>I picked up a copy of Eye of the Beholder for the Gameboy Advance the
>other day (yes, it is a terrible game, but it was cheap, and I needed
>something to kill time at work).

Hey, I love that game! DON'T KNOCK XANATHAR!!!

Seriously, it's a good game. I first got it on Sega CD (that version has
a great soundtrack IMO - it's in my Winamp playlist - but is almost
unplayable without the Sega "not a normal serial mouse") and I bought
one of those "every D&D game we've ever done" CDs from Interplay which
has all 3 EOB games on it. I still play 'em. Heck, I even worked out the
format of the EOB1 PAK archives and map files so I could try my hand at
doing a mod.

>Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
>with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
>number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
>Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
>I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.

That's what they are, really - EOB & Dungeon Master & similar games.
There's almost no "roleplaying" involved, there aren't really even
"quests" to speak of beyond stuff like "get the correct key".

>To the best of my knowledge, no such RL has been made yet. Which is
>truly a shame, since the randomness of RLs would really enhance the
>exploration element, and really help to get you into the game.
>
>The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it would
>be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of the tunnels,
>corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on the surfaces, and
>take snapshots from the right angles, to come up with all of the basic
>background graphics. Creatures would be a little harder to come by, but
>it shouldn't be too hard to find decent sprites to use.
>
>A few problems that spring to mind, is that ranged weapons, spells, and
>effects become meaningless, since you can only really interact with the
>space in front of you.

The EOB games have (somewhat) ranged spells. Magic missile and acid
arrow go in a straight line until they hit something - creature or wall.
There are also area-effect spells - if you cast fireball or ice storm (I
think) at an enemy in the square in front of you, you take damage as
well.

Ranged weapons function, too - arrows and throw weapons travel a certain
number of squares and then, if they don't hit something, drop to the
floor. (For that matter, you can throw *anything* in your inventory.)

>One solution, is to take an Eye of the Beholder
>approach, and switch to a different view for combat. Alternatively, if
>you put a stronger emphasis on exploration and discovery, the flaws in
>the combat won't be too bad.

Why bother switching? The only really bad things are the way sorta-turn-
based combat is mixed with real-time gameplay (Infinity Engine games
handle it somewhat better IMO), and the grouping of monsters and PCs is
always like this:

------
@@@.##
@@@.##
------

Your group is always 4-6 people crammed into one square, in tight
formation. Monsters always come straight at you and group up (if there
are more than one and they can fit together in one square) in groups up
to 4. No tactics beyond "ugh, grunt, kill". No surrounding them, no
splitting up, etc.

>Any thoughts?

I made the same connection some time ago. The mod I was considering
doing would have been essentially a roguelike that used the EOB engine -
you'd have to use a version of eob.exe that's been patched to handle
things like random dungeons and whatnot.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:15:37 -0700, I wrote:


>------
>@@@.##
>@@@.##
>------

Argh, sorry, semi-DND notation - # is a monster, --- is a wall.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
Freedom feels a lot like being forced into doing things I don't want to do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

At Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:25:38 -0500,
Timothy Pruett wrote:

> I picked up a copy of Eye of the Beholder for the Gameboy Advance the
> other day (yes, it is a terrible game, but it was cheap, and I needed
> something to kill time at work). Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
> with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
> number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
> Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
> I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, no such RL has been made yet. Which is
> truly a shame, since the randomness of RLs would really enhance the
> exploration element, and really help to get you into the game.

Try out the 'Dungeon Hack' game.

--
Radomir `The Sheep' Dopieralski @**@_
($s) 3 Ching!
. . . ..v.vVvVVvVvv.v.. .

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <BEnSe.1101$tc7.219@fe03.lga>, Timothy Pruett <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> wrote:
>I picked up a copy of Eye of the Beholder for the Gameboy Advance the
>other day (yes, it is a terrible game, but it was cheap, and I needed
>something to kill time at work). Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
>with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
>number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
>Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
>I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.
>
>To the best of my knowledge, no such RL has been made yet. Which is
>truly a shame, since the randomness of RLs would really enhance the
>exploration element, and really help to get you into the game.
>
>The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it would
>be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of the tunnels,
>corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on the surfaces, and
>take snapshots from the right angles, to come up with all of the basic
>background graphics. Creatures would be a little harder to come by, but
>it shouldn't be too hard to find decent sprites to use.
>
>A few problems that spring to mind, is that ranged weapons, spells, and
>effects become meaningless, since you can only really interact with the
>space in front of you. One solution, is to take an Eye of the Beholder
>approach, and switch to a different view for combat. Alternatively, if
>you put a stronger emphasis on exploration and discovery, the flaws in
>the combat won't be too bad.
>
>Any thoughts?

Hunt around for a copy of Moraff's World.

Alan

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Timothy Pruett wrote:

> I picked up a copy of Eye of the Beholder for the Gameboy Advance the
> other day (yes, it is a terrible game, but it was cheap, and I needed
> something to kill time at work). Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
> with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
> number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
> Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
> I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, no such RL has been made yet. Which is
> truly a shame, since the randomness of RLs would really enhance the
> exploration element, and really help to get you into the game.
>
> The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it would
> be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of the tunnels,
> corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on the surfaces, and
> take snapshots from the right angles, to come up with all of the basic
> background graphics. Creatures would be a little harder to come by, but
> it shouldn't be too hard to find decent sprites to use.
>
> A few problems that spring to mind, is that ranged weapons, spells, and
> effects become meaningless, since you can only really interact with the
> space in front of you. One solution, is to take an Eye of the Beholder
> approach, and switch to a different view for combat. Alternatively, if
> you put a stronger emphasis on exploration and discovery, the flaws in
> the combat won't be too bad.
>
> Any thoughts?
Here's another game for you to try : Might and Magic 4 & 5 and maybe the
6,7,8 too.

First 2 are tile based FPS like good old Dungeon Master and the others are
full 3D like Doom. I can assure you that the ranged attacks are not
meaningless in those games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Uzytkownik "Timothy Pruett" <drakalor.tourist@gmail.com> napisal w
wiadomosci news:BEnSe.1101$tc7.219@fe03.lga...
> To the best of my knowledge, no such RL has been made yet. Which is
> truly a shame, since the randomness of RLs would really enhance the
> exploration element, and really help to get you into the game.

Umbra was a nice 3D RL (never finished, but playble). My own RL -
Borndead - is 3D and has a FPP mode.

> The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it
> would be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of
> the tunnels, corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on
> the surfaces, and take snapshots from the right angles, to come up
> with all of the basic background graphics. Creatures would be a
> little harder to come by, but it shouldn't be too hard to find
> decent sprites to use.

I use real 3D gfx for walls, doors and - generally - the
sourroundings, and ordinary RL-style letters for monsters (scaled). So
for example you get ambushed by a pack of 't's in a light-sourced
marble tunnel. Looks weird, but sort of nice. If anyone cares, here's
a screenshot: http://bajobongo.net/borndeadrl.JPG (hero attacked by a
giant bat, you can see an open door behind the creature)
regards,
Filip Dreger

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In a way, Daggerfall was sort of like that... Although all of its
dungeons were "seeded" before the game was shipped and weren't
generated anew with each new game the way we generally associate with
roguelikes, they were certainly random, and there were so many of them
that you could effectively keep exploring new random dungeons and towns
for as long as you wanted. In a way, I'm kind of disappointed that the
trend never caught on... Daggerfall's random dungeons were critized
(rightfully) for their limitations, but I thought its random towns were
pretty good, and could've been turned into the basis for an interesting
game with enough expansion. The feeling of limitless size that you get
in a game like that is something that really only comes from random
generation.

--Aquillion

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:15:37 -0700, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>
wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:25:38 -0500, Timothy Pruett wrote:
>
>
>>Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
>>with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
>>number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
>>Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
>>I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.
>
>That's what they are, really - EOB & Dungeon Master & similar games.
>There's almost no "roleplaying" involved, there aren't really even
>"quests" to speak of beyond stuff like "get the correct key".

In a way, aren't most CRPGs like that?

You can't really have true roleplaying unless there is significant
character interaction. The best you can get is something similap to
Arcanum - but as the game shows, complex scripting is prone to create
problems eventually.

>
>>The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it would
>>be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of the tunnels,
>>corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on the surfaces, and
>>take snapshots from the right angles, to come up with all of the basic
>>background graphics. Creatures would be a little harder to come by, but
>>it shouldn't be too hard to find decent sprites to use.
>>
>>A few problems that spring to mind, is that ranged weapons, spells, and
>>effects become meaningless, since you can only really interact with the
>>space in front of you.

Actually, Ranged attacks were overpowered in the case of EOB. One
fireball/ice storm generally wiped out an array of monsters. Also, EOB 3
also added Spiritual Hammer, which gave an "infinite use" ranged attack
that would take out almost any monster.

Anyway, the spells are only useless if there's no reason to use them. Most
spells are generally launched forward to a significant range, as generally
expected. In fact, very few games in that style had a problem with spells.

>The EOB games have (somewhat) ranged spells. Magic missile and acid
>arrow go in a straight line until they hit something - creature or wall.
>There are also area-effect spells - if you cast fireball or ice storm (I
>think) at an enemy in the square in front of you, you take damage as
>well.

Fireball was contained to one grid. Ice Storm is more powerful and touches
the adjecent grids as well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:49:24 -0400, Raymond Martineau wrote:

>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 17:15:37 -0700, Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 15:25:38 -0500, Timothy Pruett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyway, for those who aren't familiar
>>>with the game, it's a first person dungeon crawler, much like a large
>>>number of old school RPGs were, like Swords and Serpents, and the Ultima
>>>Underworld games. While I'm not a terribly huge fan of this sub-genre,
>>>I do think it's really well-suited for roguelikes.
>>
>>That's what they are, really - EOB & Dungeon Master & similar games.
>>There's almost no "roleplaying" involved, there aren't really even
>>"quests" to speak of beyond stuff like "get the correct key".
>
>In a way, aren't most CRPGs like that?

I suppose. I'm waiting for the day when someone includes an advanced-
enough AI in a CRPG that really is like a pen-n-paper RPG.

>You can't really have true roleplaying unless there is significant
>character interaction. The best you can get is something similap to
>Arcanum - but as the game shows, complex scripting is prone to create
>problems eventually.

I've never played Arcanum. [shrug]

>>>The graphics wouldn't be too terribly hard to make. In fact, it would
>>>be perfectly feasible to create *very* generic 3D models of the tunnels,
>>>corners, rooms, doors, etc, then slap some textures on the surfaces, and
>>>take snapshots from the right angles, to come up with all of the basic
>>>background graphics. Creatures would be a little harder to come by, but
>>>it shouldn't be too hard to find decent sprites to use.
>>>
>>>A few problems that spring to mind, is that ranged weapons, spells, and
>>>effects become meaningless, since you can only really interact with the
>>>space in front of you.
>
>Actually, Ranged attacks were overpowered in the case of EOB. One
>fireball/ice storm generally wiped out an array of monsters. Also, EOB 3
>also added Spiritual Hammer, which gave an "infinite use" ranged attack
>that would take out almost any monster.

I'm pretty sure that casting fireball at a group of kobolds in an
enclosed space is gonna kill them no matter what rules you use.

>Anyway, the spells are only useless if there's no reason to use them. Most
>spells are generally launched forward to a significant range, as generally
>expected. In fact, very few games in that style had a problem with spells.
>
>>The EOB games have (somewhat) ranged spells. Magic missile and acid
>>arrow go in a straight line until they hit something - creature or wall.
>>There are also area-effect spells - if you cast fireball or ice storm (I
>>think) at an enemy in the square in front of you, you take damage as
>>well.
>
>Fireball was contained to one grid. Ice Storm is more powerful and touches
>the adjecent grids as well.

I could've sworn that I remembered cases of accidental suicide involving
fireballs, but I just checked, and lo and behold, you're right. Weird -
a fireball that close should do some serious damage to the party.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
Dew is the tears which the stars weep.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

In article <5d2qh1pl14gruj2fefe49cj8j2spe9shp0@4ax.com>,
not.my.real@email.address says...
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:49:24 -0400, Raymond Martineau wrote:

> >Fireball was contained to one grid. Ice Storm is more powerful and touches
> >the adjecent grids as well.
>
> I could've sworn that I remembered cases of accidental suicide involving
> fireballs, but I just checked, and lo and behold, you're right. Weird -
> a fireball that close should do some serious damage to the party.

Maybe you're remembering Dungeon Master, where that was an occupational
hazard.

- Gerry Quinn

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:37:09 +0100, Gerry Quinn wrote:

>In article <5d2qh1pl14gruj2fefe49cj8j2spe9shp0@4ax.com>,
>not.my.real@email.address says...
>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:49:24 -0400, Raymond Martineau wrote:
>
>> >Fireball was contained to one grid. Ice Storm is more powerful and touches
>> >the adjecent grids as well.
>>
>> I could've sworn that I remembered cases of accidental suicide involving
>> fireballs, but I just checked, and lo and behold, you're right. Weird -
>> a fireball that close should do some serious damage to the party.
>
>Maybe you're remembering Dungeon Master, where that was an occupational
>hazard.

I was referring to D&D rules. It's convenient to "forget" that a massive
explosion 5 feet away will hurt your character. (Fireball is supposed to
travel to where the mage targets it and then *explode*.)
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
Should I speed the process to its logical conclusion and poke out my own
eardrums now?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Auric__ wrote:

> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:37:09 +0100, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>>In article <5d2qh1pl14gruj2fefe49cj8j2spe9shp0@4ax.com>,
>>not.my.real@email.address says...
>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:49:24 -0400, Raymond Martineau wrote:
>>
>>> >Fireball was contained to one grid. Ice Storm is more powerful and
>>> >touches the adjecent grids as well.
>>>
>>> I could've sworn that I remembered cases of accidental suicide involving
>>> fireballs, but I just checked, and lo and behold, you're right. Weird -
>>> a fireball that close should do some serious damage to the party.
>>
>>Maybe you're remembering Dungeon Master, where that was an occupational
>>hazard.
>
> I was referring to D&D rules. It's convenient to "forget" that a massive
> explosion 5 feet away will hurt your character. (Fireball is supposed to
> travel to where the mage targets it and then *explode*.)

Each game has it's own rules. EoB can decide that Fireball does a small
explosion, it's their right. EoB can decide Fireball doesn't explode at all
either.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:59:41 +0200, Christophe Cavalaria wrote:

>Auric__ wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 11:37:09 +0100, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5d2qh1pl14gruj2fefe49cj8j2spe9shp0@4ax.com>,
>>>not.my.real@email.address says...
>>>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 20:49:24 -0400, Raymond Martineau wrote:
>>>
>>>> >Fireball was contained to one grid. Ice Storm is more powerful and
>>>> >touches the adjecent grids as well.
>>>>
>>>> I could've sworn that I remembered cases of accidental suicide involving
>>>> fireballs, but I just checked, and lo and behold, you're right. Weird -
>>>> a fireball that close should do some serious damage to the party.
>>>
>>>Maybe you're remembering Dungeon Master, where that was an occupational
>>>hazard.
>>
>> I was referring to D&D rules. It's convenient to "forget" that a massive
>> explosion 5 feet away will hurt your character. (Fireball is supposed to
>> travel to where the mage targets it and then *explode*.)
>
>Each game has it's own rules. EoB can decide that Fireball does a small
>explosion, it's their right. EoB can decide Fireball doesn't explode at all
>either.

Perhaps, but considering that it's an "official D&D product" you'd think
they would've stuck to the rules a bit more.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
WMD? WTF!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Christophe Cavalaria <chris.cavalaria@free.fr> schrieb:
> Here's another game for you to try : Might and Magic 4 & 5 and maybe
> the 6,7,8 too.

You can buy a pack with all eight or ten of them. It's funny to see them
all, because it shows you how such games have progressed over the years
from a first person tile based game to first person realtime.

I think 3 was the best game of its time, but obviously doesn't stand up
to today's standards.

--
Jim Strathmeyer

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) writes:

> Christophe Cavalaria <chris.cavalaria@free.fr> schrieb:
>> Here's another game for you to try : Might and Magic 4 & 5 and maybe
>> the 6,7,8 too.
>
> You can buy a pack with all eight or ten of them. It's funny to see them
> all, because it shows you how such games have progressed over the years
> from a first person tile based game to first person realtime.
>
> I think 3 was the best game of its time, but obviously doesn't stand up
> to today's standards.

I've *definitely* got a soft spot for the old-school RPGs - Might & Magic,
Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, etc.

sherm--

--
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume: http://www.dot-app.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Quoting Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:59:41 +0200, Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
>>Each game has it's own rules. EoB can decide that Fireball does a small
>>explosion, it's their right. EoB can decide Fireball doesn't explode at all
>>either.
>Perhaps, but considering that it's an "official D&D product" you'd think
>they would've stuck to the rules a bit more.

Obviously that would make more sense than picking an implementation that
was a good match with the interface and gameplay of the rest of the game.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Leicesterday, August.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 07 Sep 2005 13:24:10 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:

>Quoting Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address>:
>>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:59:41 +0200, Christophe Cavalaria wrote:
>>>Each game has it's own rules. EoB can decide that Fireball does a small
>>>explosion, it's their right. EoB can decide Fireball doesn't explode at all
>>>either.
>>Perhaps, but considering that it's an "official D&D product" you'd think
>>they would've stuck to the rules a bit more.
>
>Obviously that would make more sense than picking an implementation that
>was a good match with the interface and gameplay of the rest of the game.

Sarcasm aside, yes. If they could make ice storm act somewhat properly,
they could have done the same with fireball.
--
auric dot auric at gmail dot com
*****
What profiteth a man to reinstall Windows, if he loseth his sigfile?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Sherm Pendley wrote:

> strathWHATEVERIGETENOUGHSPAMANYWAYS@ipass.net (Jim Strathmeyer) writes:
>
>> Christophe Cavalaria <chris.cavalaria@free.fr> schrieb:
>>> Here's another game for you to try : Might and Magic 4 & 5 and maybe
>>> the 6,7,8 too.
>>
>> You can buy a pack with all eight or ten of them. It's funny to see them
>> all, because it shows you how such games have progressed over the years
>> from a first person tile based game to first person realtime.
>>
>> I think 3 was the best game of its time, but obviously doesn't stand up
>> to today's standards.
>
> I've *definitely* got a soft spot for the old-school RPGs - Might & Magic,
> Ultima, Wizardry, Bard's Tale, etc.
>
> sherm--
>

Actually, I think the 4+5 are rather enjoyable even today. Big world,
especially when you install both at the same time. Lots of subquests etc...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
>Sarcasm aside, yes. If they could make ice storm act somewhat properly,
>they could have done the same with fireball.

In computer adaptations of P&P RPGs, fidelity of transposition must always
take second place to good gameplay.

A faithfully translated AD&D fireball (either edition) would be
completely useless in most of EoB's levels. An AD&D fireball does not
fill a 20' radius around the impact point with flames; it fills a space
with a volume equal to that of a sphere of 20' radius with flames. This
behaviour is *explicitly* stated in both editions of the AD&D Player's
Handbook.

Assuming (and I think this is a reasonable assumption; it fits what one
can observe about monster sizes and such) that the EoB engine uses
stereotypical 10'x10'x10' cubic cells for dungeon construction, this
means that a true AD&D fireball would fill 33 EoB map cells. There are
plenty of areas in the EoB series where that would not only completely
flood the area the party is standing in, but also flow into other
levels via the stairs.

No adaptation of AD&D for computer games has ever faithfully adhered to
the original AD&D game mechanics for either of the two classic
third-level mass damage spells. Their lightning bolts tend to bounce
off walls, rather than extending back from the origin point towards
the caster if there isn't enough room for them to extend forward.
--
Martin Read - my opinions are my own. share them if you wish.
\_\/_/ in the metal and blood in the scent and mascara on a backcloth of
\ / lashes and scars in a flood of your tears in sackcloth and ashes
\/ -- Sisters of Mercy, "Flood I"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.development (More info?)

On 08 Sep 2005 11:06:44 +0100 (BST), Martin Read
<mpread@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Auric__ <not.my.real@email.address> wrote:
>>Sarcasm aside, yes. If they could make ice storm act somewhat properly,
>>they could have done the same with fireball.
>
>In computer adaptations of P&P RPGs, fidelity of transposition must always
>take second place to good gameplay.
>
>A faithfully translated AD&D fireball (either edition) would be
>completely useless in most of EoB's levels. An AD&D fireball does not
>fill a 20' radius around the impact point with flames; it fills a space
>with a volume equal to that of a sphere of 20' radius with flames. This
>behaviour is *explicitly* stated in both editions of the AD&D Player's
>Handbook.

Oh.... I didn't notice that. In my opinion, that makes a fireball an ultra
powerful attack, as it wipes out entire corridors of enemies.

It basically means that it can singlehandedly cleanse a 100 meter corridor
with the same width and height. Say hello to unusually planned defences.

>Assuming (and I think this is a reasonable assumption; it fits what one
>can observe about monster sizes and such) that the EoB engine uses
>stereotypical 10'x10'x10' cubic cells for dungeon construction, this
>means that a true AD&D fireball would fill 33 EoB map cells. There are
>plenty of areas in the EoB series where that would not only completely
>flood the area the party is standing in, but also flow into other
>levels via the stairs.

The problem in implementing that in a more modern RPG is that it could be
an absolute horror to code properly. In practice, a fireball that partly
detonates towards a room will excessivly trim away from the distance that
it should expand down corridor.

>
>No adaptation of AD&D for computer games has ever faithfully adhered to
>the original AD&D game mechanics for either of the two classic
>third-level mass damage spells. Their lightning bolts tend to bounce
>off walls, rather than extending back from the origin point towards
>the caster if there isn't enough room for them to extend forward.

Actually, the 1st edition used a 20" sphere and bouncy lightning - even of
that was not intended, that was the way it was interpreted. Most DMs will
not notice that type of change when thoy glance over the second edition